From the linked article: "But, having worked among the Soviets, I know that large groups of very intelligent people can fall into a collective delusion that what they are doing in certain areas is the right thing, when it's actually not the right thing at all." Well, looking beyond journalists, which is the subject of the article, I would suggest that the author's comment has deeper implications throughout American society in 2009. Very intelligent people--ostensibly pursuing and supporting noble causes--are ignorant of the real impact of those causes. Within academia, for example (where I still work), some very bright people are thoroughly convinced that the current administration is on the right track. I should share with them the article you've highlighted, but I doubt that anyone would be motivated to do anything but scoff at the author's ideas. Oh, how I wish journalists (and my fellow academics) would be more objective, critical, and analytical about current events. But I suppose I am hoping for something that cannot happen. What say you?
And this vein has played out. No, really. Nobody's buying anymore. The last time we let the conservative media preach this crap we ended up hearing about how Iraq had WMDs and how we had to invade.
The only thing certain about most journalists is that they're incredibly lazy while they grind their own axes and they don't give a hoot about anybody but themselves.
For the record Beau Blue, I did not use or endorse the phrase, "biased liberal media." I did, however, suggest objectivity, critical engagement, and thoughtful analysis as the modus operandi for journalists and academia. Now, as for republicans, WMDs, Iraq, and babies, there is nothing in what I've said (or, as far as I can tell, there is nothing in what Frank has said) that either explicitly or implicitly involves any of that "stuff." Again, I'm talking about improvements in journalism. How did that become a gauntlet thrown down for purposes of instigating the democrat-republican argument?
Well, R.T., for the record, I wasn't responding to what you said.
Frank pointed to an article that begins with 'most journalists are democrats' and ends with those journalists, therefore, 'are unable to tell the truth'. That article was the spur for my comment.
I assume you think I'm guantlet throwing because you agree with the premise of the article?
That the lies in media are due to journalists being Democrats? I disagree, Dems or Repubs, doesn't matter.
Witness the lies that ran up to the war with Iraq. Repub lies. See? It's that they're propagandists first, lazy, self-interested propagandists, that is the base flaw. To blame it on either party or any ideology misses the point.
If that's a guantlet to you, so be it. That won't change my mind.
Hey, what is this, Blue? Again, I have to agree with you - in part. Journalists - not all, by any means, but a good many - while not exactly lazy, do tend to follow the course of least resistance. That may explain why most are Democrats (that's meant to be funny - as my former colleagues would immediately know). At any rate, most journalists - 89 percent, I believe - vote Democratic. I think that is not good. The profession should more nearly reflect the breakdown in the general population, in order to be more representative of that population, which presumably they serve. Moreover, any profession with that degree of unanimity has a problem. It almost makes you want to be a contrarian, don't you think, you old curmudgeon?
Oh, and by the way, the three of us ought to be able to differ and get along - and set an example for the rest of the country. I may have disagreed with most of my colleagues at The Inquirer, but I respected them and, above all, really liked them, and miss the day-to-day back-and-forth.
"The last time we let the conservative media preach this crap we ended up hearing about how Iraq had WMDs and how we had to invade."
That was from the conservative media (is that the same as the vast right-wing conspiracy)? I remember Mr. Clinton arguing in favor of WMDs and the threat of Hussein. I don't think you have to worry about any conservative media spinning reality into the ground. The media bias argument is not as black/white as statements like yours suggest.
From the linked article:
ReplyDelete"But, having worked among the Soviets, I know that large groups of very intelligent people can fall into a collective delusion that what they are doing in certain areas is the right thing, when it's actually not the right thing at all."
Well, looking beyond journalists, which is the subject of the article, I would suggest that the author's comment has deeper implications throughout American society in 2009. Very intelligent people--ostensibly pursuing and supporting noble causes--are ignorant of the real impact of those causes. Within academia, for example (where I still work), some very bright people are thoroughly convinced that the current administration is on the right track. I should share with them the article you've highlighted, but I doubt that anyone would be motivated to do anything but scoff at the author's ideas. Oh, how I wish journalists (and my fellow academics) would be more objective, critical, and analytical about current events. But I suppose I am hoping for something that cannot happen. What say you?
Well, R.T., I am at work now on a piece in which I suggest that people take John Milton's advice ... and do precisely what you suggest.
ReplyDeleteOh yawn ... 'the biased liberal media'?
ReplyDeleteAgain?
Repubs out of power are such babies.
And this vein has played out. No, really. Nobody's buying anymore. The last time we let the conservative media preach this crap we ended up hearing about how Iraq had WMDs and how we had to invade.
The only thing certain about most journalists is that they're incredibly lazy while they grind their own axes and they don't give a hoot about anybody but themselves.
-blue
For the record Beau Blue, I did not use or endorse the phrase, "biased liberal media." I did, however, suggest objectivity, critical engagement, and thoughtful analysis as the modus operandi for journalists and academia. Now, as for republicans, WMDs, Iraq, and babies, there is nothing in what I've said (or, as far as I can tell, there is nothing in what Frank has said) that either explicitly or implicitly involves any of that "stuff." Again, I'm talking about improvements in journalism. How did that become a gauntlet thrown down for purposes of instigating the democrat-republican argument?
ReplyDeleteWell, R.T., for the record, I wasn't responding to what you said.
ReplyDeleteFrank pointed to an article that begins with 'most journalists are democrats' and ends with those journalists, therefore, 'are unable to tell the truth'. That article was the spur for my comment.
I assume you think I'm guantlet throwing because you agree with the premise of the article?
That the lies in media are due to journalists being Democrats? I disagree, Dems or Repubs, doesn't matter.
Witness the lies that ran up to the war with Iraq. Repub lies. See? It's that they're propagandists first, lazy, self-interested propagandists, that is the base flaw. To blame it on either party or any ideology misses the point.
If that's a guantlet to you, so be it. That won't change my mind.
-blue
**
*
"Rupert's not a Democrat, you know that, right?"
"Wait, is he a journalist?"
Hey, what is this, Blue? Again, I have to agree with you - in part. Journalists - not all, by any means, but a good many - while not exactly lazy, do tend to follow the course of least resistance. That may explain why most are Democrats (that's meant to be funny - as my former colleagues would immediately know). At any rate, most journalists - 89 percent, I believe - vote Democratic. I think that is not good. The profession should more nearly reflect the breakdown in the general population, in order to be more representative of that population, which presumably they serve. Moreover, any profession with that degree of unanimity has a problem. It almost makes you want to be a contrarian, don't you think, you old curmudgeon?
ReplyDeleteOh, and by the way, the three of us ought to be able to differ and get along - and set an example for the rest of the country. I may have disagreed with most of my colleagues at The Inquirer, but I respected them and, above all, really liked them, and miss the day-to-day back-and-forth.
ReplyDelete"The last time we let the conservative media preach this crap we ended up hearing about how Iraq had WMDs and how we had to invade."
ReplyDeleteThat was from the conservative media (is that the same as the vast right-wing conspiracy)? I remember Mr. Clinton arguing in favor of WMDs and the threat of Hussein. I don't think you have to worry about any conservative media spinning reality into the ground. The media bias argument is not as black/white as statements like yours suggest.